Deryck,

sorry I ddint get any pictures of it last weekend (its in storage on another property that I am relocating my anson parts from) but hope to get photos this weekend for you, as it will be one of the items relocated this weekend.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Sealord,

I’m not very familiar with the type, but on review of your link I note the pressurisation was dropped from the design before its first flight.

I assume in 1941 the Atomic Bomb and the need for high altitude and speed related to the exit of the delivery aircraft was not a known issue, and that therefore the primary reason for the pressurisation in the spec was related to the long range requirements of the design.

I therefore wonder if the design (unpressurised) was effectively overtaken by the intended Lancaster VI which later became the Lincoln, and that the ongoing development of the design from 1944 onwards was really a design exercise rather than any intention to enter production.

For its intended role of maintaining the conventional bombing of Germany in Europe the Lincoln was more than adequate (as was the existing Lancaster design which is why it remained in production and service and the Lincoln was held back from operational introduction).

The US had specifically developed the B29 to be pressurised for high alitude flying to achieve its long range to attack the Japanese in the Pacific, I dont know that in 1941 that the British designs of Windor or Lincoln would have been focusing on that need either.

However the pressurisation and high altitude attributes of the B29 permitted it to deliver and exit a nuclear bomb delivery, which the Lancaster and Lincoln could not.

By the end of 1945, the “need” for Nuclear delivery had been identified, but so too had the emergence of jet aircraft, the B29 Washington was a better aircraft to fill the “Nuclear standoff” stop-gap than the Lincoln, although the Lincoln did serve in some numbers post war in any case for conventional bomb capability.

I havent read any technical assessments of the Windors performance or design other than your link, but it did have some features that were problematic for others such as the remote 20mm gun barbettes on the engine narcelles, “quadruple” undercarriage that all would have risk of delaying introduction of a new type.

Your “what if” question of the viability of further development of the Windsor to meet the stop gap role would depend on two things,

one – what was the reason for the pressurisation being dropped from the deisgn in the first place?
two – how close was the design to practical introduction in 1945 when it was cancelled and the “Nuclear” requirement would have emerged?

20-20 hindsight would seem easy to agree with the historical decisions of the day not to introduce the Windsor into service in WW2 over the Lancaster or intended Lincoln, and to not proceed with it as a stopgap when the Washington could be acquired off the shelf.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Tom,

congratulations on the B18, and an excellent collection, and also on the use of replicas in the form of the avian.

Also great to see your branching out into some heavy metal, the B737 is now the most successful commercial jet airliner and certainly worthy of preservation.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

In addition to the photos and identification of the Ro-1 wreckage in Libya shown above in this thread the same site http://www.fjexpeditions.com/frameset/past.htm

Also has some photos of a SM-79 remains – also in Libya

After the camel encounter we continued to the old landing ground used in WWII. Much to our surprise, the wrecks of the two Savoia SM-79 bombers, destroyed in 1940 by the LRDG, were still there. Their condition has deteriorated since the last photo taken in 1968, but the steel frame of one of them is still fairly intact. (It is very probable that the tidbits of recognisable aeroplane parts found at various tibou encampments around Uweinat came from these two wrecks.)

Two complete SM-79’s recovered form Lebanon in the 1970’s? exist in museum collections in Italy while a third derelict fuselage also exists in a third Italian Museum.

This fuselage might still be recoverable for restoration as a fuselage/cockpit display in the Italian Air Force Museum (pick it up while recovering the historic Ro-1 fuselage above?? (and make a decent day trip out of it – smiles)

Makes you wonder what else might be lying in the desert in Libya??

Regards

Mark Pilkington

I guess I might be getting too cynical in my old age smiles, but the reply to your inquiries from Westlands seems to read more like a very convenient response to discourage further investigation?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

I have been in touch with Westlands at Yeovil and can categorically say that there is no Whirlwind at their site. It is true that their company hack was buried there having served as a fire rescue training aid (and was burnt considerably). During the 1970’s the airframe was exhumed from the north side of the airfield and removed by persons unknown for disposal. It was in danger of contaminating a nearby stream, and was removed along with a substantial quantity of soil. The records for the removal either do not exist, or are not in circulation, and Westlands have no idea of the company used for its disposal